Nihilism vs. Existentialism

[Dragar]

Hmm.

Okay, you're right. I'm being very inconsistent in my definitions. This is what I think of by 'rational':

"If a rational system desires X and believes Y is the best way of bringing about X, and has no conflicting desires, then the system will do Y."

I'd probably extend the properties of a rational system to include basic logic processing (e.g. if a rational system belives A=B and B=C, then it will also believe A=C).

That's my best description of what 'rational' means when I say it.

Edited: Corrected, thanks to LadyShea.

[LadyShea]

Dragar, I don't understand what you mean by system. Can you insert a person into your forumula so I can understand the definition?

Thanks again for all the discussion guys. I have learned a lot and thought a lot during it

[Dragar]

Dragar, I don't understand what you mean by system. Can you insert a person into your forumula so I can understand the definition?

Sure. Just substitute 'system' for 'human' or 'person' or 'Justaman' ( ), if you like.

[LadyShea]

Okay cool. I wasn't sure if it applied to persons

If a rational person desires X and believes Y is the best way of bringing about X, and has no conflicting desires, then the person will do X

Although shouldn't it be

If a rational person desires X and believes Y is the best way of bringing about X, and has no conflicting desires, then the person will do Y

[Dragar]

Erm...

Yes.

[David Gould]

Can you provide an example where this would not be the case in a human? In other words, can you provide an example of an irrational human?

It seems to me that the 'conflicting desires' part cover any kind of so-called irrationality, making it impossible for a human to be irrational under this definition.

[Dragar]

Can you provide an example where this would not be the case in a human? In other words, can you provide an example of an irrational human?

It seems to me that the 'conflicting desires' part cover any kind of so-called irrationality, making it impossible for a human to be irrational under this definition.

I'd agree. Humans are rational systems. But Justaman's problem is he is trying to completely ignore the 'desires' part.

Hmm. An example of an irrational human...

I'm afraid I can't. Possibly mental illnesses? We usally say, "You're acting irrationally!" when we either get a person's beliefs wrong, or their desires wrong. I'm not convinced anyone really does act irrationally, although I do not know precisely how mental illnesses work.

[David Gould]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I'd agree. Humans are rational systems. But Justaman's problem is he is trying to completely ignore the 'desires' part.

Hmm. An example of an irrational human...

I'm afraid I can't. Possibly mental illnesses? We usally say, "You're acting irrationally!" when we either get a person's beliefs wrong, or their desires wrong. I'm not convinced anyone really does act irrationally, although I do not know precisely how mental illnesses work.

Fair enough. I think you are right that Justaman is ignoring the desires. But we should remember that he is looking at the desires and wondering what they are based on - for example, why do we desire to live?

[Dragar]

Fair enough. I think you are right that Justaman is ignoring the desires. But we should remember that he is looking at the desires and wondering what they are based on - for example, why do we desire to live?

Because of physics, biology, evolution, etc.

(Why does all mass desire to fall toward other mass? )

But the fact is that we do. It doesn't matter why, any more the 'why' of a stone falling to Earth matters to the fact it will.

I'm not making 'should' statements. I'm making 'is' statements. It is the case we have this desire, and it is the case we will follow it.

[David Gould]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Because of physics, biology, evolution, etc.

Why does all matter desire to fall to Earth?

I think Justaman's notion of rationality is a little different. In other words, all of our thoughts, dreams, wishes et cetera are products of physical laws. But those physical laws do not in themselves create any oughts. Yet one of our strongest desires/beliefs/wishes is that we should live. Yet there is actually no reason at all why we should live at all. We also know that our inclination to want to live is based on our biology. We know that we are programmed to want to live. There is no actual reason to want to live, other than the programming.

If we did the rational thing (under Justaman's definition) we would do our best to ignore the programming altogether. Of course, this is impossible. Indeed, the only way to do so is to suicide. The act itself would still be a programmed one, of course, but after the act the programming would no longer have a hold on us, for obvious reasons.

Nihilism has really only come to be thought about as we have understood more and more about how we work. I think it relates to the notion of human autonomy. The only way we can break out of the cause and effect chain that traps us into the paradox of believing that we are free is to suicide.

But of course this ignores the obvious: what is inherently wrong with being trapped in a cause and effect chain?

[David Gould]

Originally Posted by Dragar

But the fact is that we do. It doesn't matter why, any more the 'why' of a stone falling to Earth matters to the fact it will.

I'm not making 'should' statements. I'm making 'is' statements. It is the case we have this desire, and it is the case we will follow it.

And Justaman is then asking 'Should we?' I think you are right in seeing this as a problem.

[Dragar]

Right. I'm with you. But, as Zoot has been pointing out, this is straying very dangerously close to objective values. Look here:

Yet one of our strongest desires/beliefs/wishes is that we should live. Yet there is actually no reason at all why we should live at all.

Of course there is no reason why we should live. That's how objectivism works! Justaman is looking for a Reason with an upper-case R.

We're relativists.

If we did the rational thing (under Justaman's definition) we would do our best to ignore the programming altogether.

What is Justaman's definition?

[viscousmemories]

Erm... not all humans desire to live. And some desire not to live.

When I say rational, I mean an unemotional, logical decision. Hence since I agree with Justamans essential points about the essence of non-existence, I think the purely rational decision is to get off the mouse wheel now.

However, I don't think people are or should be purely rational. In my opinion, emotion matters and should be taken into account. But the problem I have with purely emotional arguments for living (think of the pain you'll cause people!) is the same problem I have with purely emotional arguments for dying (no more pain!). I just don't think we should trust something as volatile and malleable as emotional impulse when making important decisions.

[David Gould]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Right. I'm with you. But, as Zoot has been pointing out, this is straying very dangerously close to objective values.

Of course there is no reason why we should live. That's how objectivism works! Justaman is looking for a Reason with an upper-case R.

We're relativists.

Exactly. Nihilism is based on this:

1.) Objective values are required for us to choose to continue living.
2.) Objective values do not exist.
3.) We should not continue living.


We reject 1 as an incoherent statement. However, Justaman is saying that we all secretly believe 1 and secretly reject 2, which is why we do not come to 3.

What is Justaman's definition?

He has not given it explicitly, as far as I know. My best, possibly very poor, attempt is this: a rational person does things for logical reasons.

In other words, we have a sex drive. But we do not just obey it; we restrain it with our desire to not just be a puppet of our biology. Justaman is suggesting that we actually let the whole thing flap off with no basis because we do not face the fact that everything we do is us being puppets of our biology, including us not desiring to be puppets of our biology.

This is why he thinks that those people who reject free will and objective meaning should come to nihilism.

[Zoot]

Aversion to a spider can be rational or irrational only in so far as one is judging the consistency of the aversion with the values to which it refers. For example, I am afraid of poisonous spiders because I have an aversion to pain. That is a reasonable application of aversion to pain to a particular instance of something that could cause me pain.

If I am afraid of all spiders because I am under the impression that they all have the capacity to cause me pain, that too is rational, though operating on mistaken information regarding the nature of the spiders.

If I am afraid of a poisonous spider in a glass cage, one that I perceive is incapable of causing me pain, that is irrational, because it is not a consistent application of the value to the situation.

However, all of these instances are rational or irrational in terms of their consistency with the value to which they refer - the aversion to pain. The aversion to pain itself, however, cannot be evaluated as rational or irrational. Applications of values can be rational or irrational, but values themselves cannot.

[justaman]

Originally Posted by Zoot

Nope. I find myself saying, "You know, he believes objective morality is a coherent notion and I don't. We have entirely different views of the world."

Why does water collect in the lowest part of the bowl, objective morality, or the objective laws of the universe?

Are humans immune to the objective laws of the universe?

This isn't about objective morality and never has been. It is about
objectivity, but that doesn't = objective morality.

So your current objection to number 5 (FYI that list you did was pretty accurate, I think) is invalid. It is not 'correct' to choose to evalute by easevalue, it is simply rational. To not choose to evalute by easevalue, you are being irrational. But that's not to say you can't choose it still. It's just that in all other cases, humans like to think they are being rational.

So my question is:

Can you provide a fact about the world that results in preferability of an option without referring back to other criteria?

No. Again, if I could, my argument would hold less water than it does now

I'm not sure if you count the desire to be rational as a value or not, but it is the driving force behind the argument.

[justaman]

Originally Posted by David Gould

Exactly. Nihilism is based on this:

1.) Objective values are required for us to choose to continue living.
2.) Objective values do not exist.
3.) We should not continue living.


We reject 1 as an incoherent statement. However, Justaman is saying that we all secretly believe 1 and secretly reject 2, which is why we do not come to 3.

He has not given it explicitly, as far as I know. My best, possibly very poor, attempt is this: a rational person does things for logical reasons.

Pretty much. I should probably expound 'rational' more, since I'm using it so much here.

As an example, I believe the world came into existence from the big bang and there is no God. A fundamentalist beleives the world was created by God in 7 days.

Both beliefs are logical. They were learned, criteria was met, satisfactory answers were given to probing questions. They differ in their rationale, however. One is based primarily around observation, the other (as an example) is based primarily around the fact that the individual has something emotionally to gain by believing what he does. The smaller probability of the belief being objectively true is then offset by the emotional desire for the perceived rewards.

That would be irrational. A conclusion is preferred because of emotive drives impacting upon the individual and skewing his perception.

In the context of nihilism, I believe it is irrational to continue living because we do so purely out of emotional reasons - reasons which we don't like thinking we use in almost every other facet of life. I remain unconvinced that emotion should be used here. An argument you use often David is "Emotion is all that is left". But that's all that is left to convince one they should live. This is assuming that it is axiomatic that we should live.

I would in fact say that since emotion is all that is left to justify living, we are therefore bereft of rational reason and to do so is being irrational by definition.

[justaman]

Originally Posted by viscousmemories

Erm... not all humans desire to live. And some desire not to live.

When I say rational, I mean an unemotional, logical decision. Hence since I agree with Justamans essential points about the essence of non-existence, I think the purely rational decision is to get off the mouse wheel now.

However, I don't think people are or should be purely rational. In my opinion, emotion matters and should be taken into account. But the problem I have with purely emotional arguments for living (think of the pain you'll cause people!) is the same problem I have with purely emotional arguments for dying (no more pain!). I just don't think we should trust something as volatile and malleable as emotional impulse when making important decisions.

Why is this an important decision? I agree with 99% of what you say, I think we simply differ in how we ultimately consider the endstate. I don't now believe suicide is necessarily a bad thing. In point of fact, it might be the smart thing to do, in which case all of the taboo vanishes, and you drive off a cliff as cheerfully as swigging from a beer

[justaman]

Sorry I skipped this, been away doing stuff.

P.S. From now on I'm calling you 'Sheriff'. Get it?? Get it?? That's awesome I bet no one ever thought of that before, hey? I'm the best

Originally Posted by Dragar

Mostly because it's wrong. Spread out spacetime, like a map. Can you see me? I'm there, in a certain region of that map. I trace out a line, if you like, which has a finite length of spacetime.

If you are treating time any differently to space, you are doing something wrong in your analysis.

I'd be doing something wrong if I were trying to posit this was what reality was like. I'm not. I'm suggesting this is what your individual subjectivity will be like. That being the case, the reality of reality is in fact irrelevant because you aren't reality. You are the subjective bit which - when it stops existing - will cease to have a past.

But deterministic chemistry and biology (and physics!) in our brains is us. I don't distinguish between myself and reality.

You should. That part of reality which calls itself Dragar - and is called Sheriff by others - that bit which is typing responses, making decisions, etc, will cease to exist at a point and that part of it doing the thinking, processing, etc will never have existed by its own estimation.

You can intellectually deny there is a 'you'. I do as well, it's fun. But we both still yelp when we stub our toes.

I think the rest of your post has been addressed by the other guys, but lemme know if not.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by justaman

Why is this an important decision? I agree with 99% of what you say, I think we simply differ in how we ultimately consider the endstate. I don't now believe suicide is necessarily a bad thing. In point of fact, it might be the smart thing to do, in which case all of the taboo vanishes, and you drive off a cliff as cheerfully as swigging from a beer

Hehe. I hesitated to say important, but decided to let it go. It's subjectively important to me now, to do that which will cause the least amount of pain to those people who care about me. Hence while I agree that this consideration would be irrelevant were I to die, it is relevant to the choices I make until then.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by justaman

Sorry I skipped this, been away doing stuff.

P.S. From now on I'm calling you 'Sheriff'. Get it?? Get it?? That's awesome I bet no one ever thought of that before, hey? I'm the best

I don't get it...

But I'm sure I'll laugh when you clue me in.

You should. That part of reality which calls itself Dragar - and is called Sheriff by others - that bit which is typing responses, making decisions, etc, will cease to exist at a point and that part of it doing the thinking, processing, etc will never have existed by its own estimation.

No, there won't be any estimation. Its not there, remember?

You can intellectually deny there is a 'you'. I do as well, it's fun. But we both still yelp when we stub our toes.

Maybe we're not yelping?

That would be irrational. A conclusion is preferred because of emotive drives impacting upon the individual and skewing his perception.

In the context of nihilism, I believe it is irrational to continue living because we do so purely out of emotional reasons - reasons which we don't like thinking we use in almost every other facet of life.

This is where you're going wrong. You're using 'rational' in one sense to mean 'drawing conclusions about reality using emotional reasons'.

You're using 'rational' in another sense to mean 'acting due to emotional reasons'.

You do not decide what you want to do based on logic. What you want to do is never chosen; it is your desires. You do not choose desires. Logic merely allows true/false to be returned on beliefs about various paths to take to satisfy those desires.

I'm quite happy to be irrational by your second definition (all humans are irrational, by those standards), and I strive not to be irrational by your first.

[Dragar]

Erm... not all humans desire to live. And some desire not to live.

Sure. And they're the ones that, if that desire overpowers the rest, will suicide.

[Dragar]

In other words, we have a sex drive. But we do not just obey it; we restrain it with our desire to not just be a puppet of our biology.

But...we are restraining it due to our biology. It just happens to be more recently evolved parts.

[viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Sure. And they're the ones that, if that desire overpowers the rest, will suicide.

But should they?

I think there's some confusion here.

Justaman appears to be saying that we desire to live, but we shouldn't.

You appear to be saying that we desire to live... but stopping short of a should.

So back to my question. Should someone who loses the desire to live commit suicide?

[LadyShea]

[QUOTE=viscousmemories]

Originally Posted by Dragar

But should they?

I think there's some confusion here.

Justaman appears to be saying that we desire to live, but we shouldn't.

You appear to be saying that we desire to live... but stopping short of a should.

So back to my question. Should someone who loses the desire to live commit suicide?

Hmm, someone mentioned they weren't thinking in terms of "should", but simply what is. "Should" is a subjective term.